Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

  1.  @wbertie2604  F4D Skyray only served 8yrs and never exported.
    2
  2. Apparently the UN has declared that no one can call it a war or invasion. Clearly bowing to Russian influence in the UN.
    2
  3.  @jefferyindorf699  You knew what I meant though, and that's what mattered. Most people don't know that.
    2
  4. more competitive, now that they have to put up better pricing and such to win deals.
    2
  5. 1:23 the P-51 started off in the EXACT role it was designed for......replacing the P-40
    2
  6.  @thefolder69  but more balanced and useful, as proven by history. But the F8F's low G-load limits (6-7G max allowed) seriously hurt it's turning and maneuvering potential. Though the F8F could have operated from the escort carriers. But with Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and 16 fleet carriers (with more on the way like the Midway and remaining Essex class), the escorts were becoming less important. Turn rate was less important in WW2 than most people realize. Speed, and boom and zoom tactics dominated. P-38 vs Zero, Me262 vs Mustang, and many other matchups prove this. Doesn't hurt to have maneuverability as well, but speed and altitude became more important.
    2
  7. If western nations send enough anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, they wont need them themselves as their will be no enemy tanks left to shoot at.
    2
  8. what's wrong with using brain power to master aviation?
    2
  9.  @154Kilroy  that I can agree with. You may be right now that I read it again.
    2
  10.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  Yes, they need to include that boiler fuel weight as well. That was my first thought, what powers the boiler and how much do they carry in relation to teh water? So many details left unaddressed in this video. The total weight of fuel and engine matters for both propulsion types. But I bet the fuel for the boiler is far less than the water weight/volume. water weights more than fuel after all. 8lb/gal for water, 6lb/gal for fuel.
    2
  11. It's actually not uncommon for military competitions to result in two good designs (F-22 vs YF-23, F-4 vs F8U3, F-16 vs YF-17, F-15E vs F-16XL). so not surprising that either would have resulted in a good tank if given time to improve the designs and work out any remaining bugs in the design (they are still just prototypes at that point after all).
    2
  12. the story of the Storch descending while remaining over one spot is entirely possible in the right winds. I've done similar in Cessna aircraft. Flew a C182RG backwards over the ground at 50kts once. We had high winds in the mountain valley, and winds on the ground regularly reached 40kts. So at altitude we slowed up and put teh flaps out while facing south and the GPS showed us flying north at 50kts ground speed, and we visually confirmed we were flying backwards in relation to the ground. And in weather like that an airplane with a stall speed below 40kts could easily land with zero ground speed. There used to be two videos online that I unfortunately can't find anymore. One was of a guy in Alaska landing his bush plane with zero ground speed, descending the last ~20ft vertically. The second was of an early Carbon Cub model taking off backwards into a strong wind. It's simple aerodynamics.
    2
  13. Lots of used F-16s coming available as allied nations trade theirs in for F-35s.
    1
  14. the North American XF-108 Rapier is another "What if?" I often wonder about. But it was so far less developed than the Arrow and others that I get why it is so overlooked. There just wasn't much to go on other than speculation.
    1
  15.  @franklester4011  too bad Vought doesn't exist anymore.
    1
  16.  @franklester4011  Perhaps something like a Northrop F-24 Corsair?
    1
  17. high drag design, bet that's what its problem is. may look good, but not good for aerodynamic efficiency.
    1
  18. Highly unlikely that a Republican President would prevent the sale of NATO aircraft to Ukraine.
    1
  19. The lasers can track the change in direction of a missile, and needs only very slight adjustments at range to track large position changes of the missile. Weapons grade lasers need mere seconds to burn through more "armor" than an effective air-to-air or SAM missile can carry. You have some interesting thoughts, don't get me wrong, but I don't see them being enough to stop the laser.
    1
  20.  @johnparrish9215  Or, in a more simplistic strategy, you fly head long into a fight, as normal, in a flight of F-16s, and shoot down any missiles fired your way. I'm over simplifying, but you don't need stealth. If your trick works, why not do it already? with no current laser pods, why not sling infrared seekers at stealth craft right now?
    1
  21.  @johnparrish9215  An infrared blinder, or vectoring infrared missiles onto enemy stealth aircraft with long wave radar? US planes have had such systems installed too (blinders).
    1
  22. the high altitude approach was valid, assuming better targeting for the bombs. But at that altitude you need some degree of guidance post-drop to counter the winds on the way down. It didn't work only due to the lack of sufficient targeting equipment at the time.
    1
  23. P-51J, P-38K, and many more also have rather disappointingly little data on them.
    1
  24. F-16 Viper B-1 Bone
    1
  25.  @thekinginyellow1744  often times we come up with nicknames in the military because they are easier to say, more concise. Viper and Bone are perfect examples of that. Other times the nicknames are the result of a more apt description than was assigned, such as Warthog or Juggernaut. Other times nicknames are gained by accident, such as the Curtiss CW-21 "Demon". Apparently the aircraft sent to Asia had demon on the crates, short for "demonstration", but was mistaken for the name of the aircraft. And others just had appropriate names like the Hellcat, Tomcat, Eagle, Raptor, etc.
    1
  26.  @Slaktrax With it's record setting and legendary climb rate, I'm not surprised.
    1
  27.  @shelbyseelbach9568  He's saying that given the weight, the horsepower of the Zero was relatively powerful, and adequate for the design early on.
    1
  28.  @shelbyseelbach9568  I would have used the term "underpowered" to describe the engine, and reworded it differently myself. So i get where you are coming from, and agree others might be confused as well.
    1
  29.  @shelbyseelbach9568  In many cases you'd be correct, but that is a purely absolutist viewpoint. It is not the only viewpoint. Ever heard of the Telephone game? People swap words out when repeating things all the time, not realizing how dramatically a single word swap can change the entire meaning of the sentence. Journalists do this all the time when they try to relay info from an interview on a topic they know nothing about or don't understand. Most people do this sort of thing on a daily basis when relaying information without even realizing it. The phrase "read between the lines" exists for a reason. You can desire for all the answers to be spelled out for you by others, all the answers given to you, and every action and decision laid out for you like a child, or you can choose to learn to communicate and learn effectively like everyone else should be doing. But nobody is perfect, and we all make mistakes from time to time, and so we need to be intelligent enough to recognize this and adapt.
    1
  30. ​ @shelbyseelbach9568  You very cleary did ask a question. So if answers were not your objective, why bother commenting at all and make us guess what your desired response was? Why was there any need for you to comment at all? If you've already made up your mind that the information was unclear or misguided, against, why bother commenting at all? Also, if you seek answers from YouTube comments, might I suggest a library or historical/scientific book instead? There are millions of comments on YouTube, so why did you single out this one? Seems to me you find his comment useful and meaningful enough to comment on it and seek an answer. Otherwise, why did you bother commenting with a question?
    1
  31.  @shelbyseelbach9568  And how's that? The rest of us understood the unusual use of "overpowered", why couldn't you?
    1
  32. ​ @shelbyseelbach9568  Yes, we already went over that. We are reading between the lines. If you don't agree, then ignore it.
    1
  33.  @shelbyseelbach9568  "you continue to make my point, and not have the intelligence to even see it." That's not a retort, that's what a person does when they are losing and have no argument. They resort to bullying, name calling, character assassination, deflecting, avoiding answering any questions, etc.
    1
  34.  @shelbyseelbach9568  What is "double talking"? My goal is not to look intelligent, it's to understand why you insist on treating everyone rudely, and then expecting them to respond to your demands. Everyone else seems to understand the comment but you. You just don't like the answer. If you see right through me, then what is it you see? I'm truly curious.
    1
  35.  @shelbyseelbach9568  I was commenting to agree, and saw you asking a question. i answered. And yes, you are being very rude. You claim to be making a point, but I see nothing constructive being added, only criticism for the sake of argument. If you don't care, why keep responding? You ask questions, and make demands of others, yet refuse to answer any questions yourself. You still haven't explained why you bothered to comment at all in the first place given that you didn't value the comment you responded to, and claim to not care about. You care enough to keep responding. Each time contributing nothing to the discussion.
    1
  36.  @shelbyseelbach9568  You responded to the original comment only ONCE. The rest was you getting upset with me for trying to answer your question. "LOL. If your say so. Certainly not how his comment reads." So if the comment was not satisfactory to you, nor was mine and others' explanations, then why did you comment? What answer were you hoping to get? "I don't know what he meant to say, I only know what he actually said. Everything else is pure speculation." Exactly, which is why others commented. " I wasnt asking for answers, he was trying to convey information. He either did so clearly or he didn't. If i was just going to guess the information he wanted to convey, there would be no need for him to speak at all. " You pretty clearly dismissed the comment here, and very rudely disregarded the commenter you were supposedly seeking clarification from. You plainly admit, after asking the question, that you didn't actually want a response either, so why ask if you don't want an answer? That's rather rude in and of itself. And once again, you resort to continual baseless arguments such as insults, sexism, name calling, avoiding the questions, dismissing arguments, and downright lying.
    1
  37.  @shelbyseelbach9568  I am quoting you directly, arguing with facts... that's how a technical or scientific debate is conducted. Yet you only respond with responses that are not valid in any way, childish even, and think you've somehow proven your point. You still haven't answered, what sort of response were you expecting from your original comment? But I'll leave it to any unfortunate people who happen to read all of this to decide who is correct here.
    1
  38.  @shelbyseelbach9568  never said you did, but you can't "win" a discussion without making your case. Childish behavior is not how one proves their point, unless their point is to show immaturity. Others will decide.
    1
  39. and their trainer is clearly a T-6 copy.
    1
  40. nice intro 🤣
    1
  41.  @stephencrowther524  Thant's not an answer to my question. how does a nuclear reactor produce electricity? How does a nuclear reactor power an airplane?
    1
  42.  @brianb-p6586  that wiki article explains Nothing. How does a gas turbine jet engine propel an airplane without injecting furl into the engine? if all you're doing is providing heat for combustion, that's terribly inefficient for the weight penalty of the reactor. You're not going to generate enough reactor heat to ignite the air, and even if you did, the reactor itself would melt the airplane. If you're driving electric motors, then you are using steam power.
    1
  43.  @luvr381  "And stop being snarky. I can explain it to you, " but you only just now finally did attempt to explain it. Up until now, you avoided, dodged, deflected. now, how much heat must a reactor generate to get the air hot enough to not need fuel? And how will such a hot reactor be contained within the airframe without melting the airframe nor starting it on fire? Point is, superheated air from a reactor generates steam in the turbine. Generating electricity from a reactor requires steam. Either way, it's steam power.
    1
  44.  @nightshade4873  the test beds never actually achieved nuclear propulsion. they never got past merely carrying a reactor onboard. but you prove my point, they are steam powered.
    1
  45.  @brianb-p6586  I read teh wiki, and it made no attemtp to describe the mechanism by which a gas turbine can provide sufficient thrust using a reactor alone. nor was such a feat ever attemtped. You don't owe me anything. But if you fail to defend your claims in debate, then you lose the debate.
    1
  46.  @brianb-p6586  "the Wikipedia article explains everything" No, it 100% does not. it makes no attemtpt o explain how a gas turbine works using no fuel and only a reactor. But superheating teh air would make the turbine a steam turbine. "No one is using or has ever seriously proposed using electric propeller or fan drive in a nuclear-powered aircraft." same is true for a nuclear powered jet airplane. no one has ever attempted it, nor made a serious effort to attempt it.
    1
  47.  @brianb-p6586  no aircraft testbed EVER attempted nuclear propulsion. as teh wiki explains. you're trying desperately to not lose, a losing argument.
    1
  48.  @brianb-p6586  "your failure to understand basic technical concepts is not anyone else's failure." and which concepts are those? you still can't even refute nor answer my original questions. your flailing is getting pathetic. I don't need you to teach me anything. I need you to defend your claims, with facts and evidence. Otherwise you lose the debate.
    1
  49.  @olpaint71  But is Charle's law enough to turn a jet engine? And when you heat up air, you create steam, thus the former gas turbine is now a steam turbine.
    1
  50.  @olpaint71  is heating air and boyle's law sufficient to sustain a jet engine? How much pressure can you create by heating air?
    1